Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

A Measure of Textural Patterns and Strengths

Quentin R. Nordgren

Journal of Music Theory, Vol. 4, No. 1. (Apr., 1960), pp. 19-31.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2909%28196004%294%3A1%3C19%3AAMOTPA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

Journal of Music Theory is currently published by Duke University Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/duke.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Sun Mar 9 09:32:46 2008
A MEASURE OF
TEXTURAL PATTERNS AND STRENGTHS

Quentin R. Nordgren

Brigham Young University

Although in existing writings about music the t e r m texture is not


always clearly defined, the t e r m is used to describe phenomena relat-
ing to the structure of music. Existing concepts fall generally into two
categories: (1) polyphonic o r homophonic, and ( 2 ) light o r heavy.
Rimsky-Korsakov points out that harmonic texture is common to both
polyphonic and homophonic styles [fi, 711. In this concept the vertical
relationship of sounds makes up the texture. Rimsky-Korsakov, a s
a r e others interested in orchestration, is concerned with the proper
scoring of instruments to avoid too heavy o r too light sonorities. Stu-
dents of orchestration a r e warned that too many gaps will cause thin-
ness in the harmonic structure [&, 861 and that low scoring of the
middle p a r t s will cause heaviness [2, 76, 881.
In the consideration of the total structure of music, the explora-
tion and classification of certain vertical relationships a r e explained in
the study of harmony. Our present-day chord classifications a r e a
great simplification over the classifications existing prior to the time
of Rameau, e. g. Johann Mattheson's classification of seventy-four
chords into three general groups: consonant, dissonant, and less-used
dissonant [a, 161. Yet, with our classifications, there may be some-
thing left unsaid with regard to sonority o r the total effect of simultane-
ously sounded tone -combinations.
It is believed by some theorists that the f i r s t inversion of a triad
sounds lighter than the s a m e triad in i t s root position, that harmony in
open position usually sounds l e s s intense than in close position, and
that large gaps between inner p a r t s produce a weak effect E, 43-4;
2, 4; 6, 681. With regard to this, Piston makes the following statement:
One should listen carefully to the relative effect of
various spacings of the same chord and notice the kind of
spacing used in music heard. The intervals between voices
a r e an important factor in the texture and actual sound of
the music. In the common-practice period of harmonic
usage this has been largely a m a t t e r of effective distribu-
tion of given chord tones, but with the Twentieth Century,
composers have become much more preoccupied with in-
tervals and their combinations into individual sonorities
E, 151.
Another phenomenon related to sonority is the r e g i s t e r in which
the chord o r chord-tones is heard. The sound of a given interval o r
chord in a high o r middle register is different from the sound of the
same interval o r chord i n a low r e g i s t e r 11, 80; 2 , 67-8, 1221. Dyson
QUENTIN R. NORDGREN
maintains that fullness of texture may be achieved by the use of a
g r e a t e r number of instruments [z, 2051.
The question a r i s e s : I s i t possible to measure texture? Hinde-
mith comments on the fact that we do not have anything comparable to
a metronome, which m e a s u r e s tempo, o r a clock, which m e a s u r e s
duration, with which to measure the degree of textural complexity [a,
1581. Irvine a s k s the question: Why can't we measure the timbre of
chords a s we do the individual tones of instruments? He believes that
a chord should have i t s own wave-pattern. He maintains that if these
patterns could be made visible, a new field of investigation would open
up [ j J , 350-51.
The t e r m s "light" and "heavy" a r e too general for detailed in-
vestigation of the vertical aspects of musical texture. The degree of
textural complexity can be better defined and understood. The objec-
tive of this study is to s e t up a workable s y s t e m for classifyingtextural
patterns and strengths.
Eight aspects of texture a r e basic to the study of texture. These
a r e a s follows: (1) the number of instruments, (2) the range of instru-
ments, (3) the r e g i s t e r of the range, (4) the spacing of instruments,
(5) the proportion of gap, (6) the r e g i s t e r of gap, (7) doubling concen-
trations, and (8) the r e g i s t e r of doubling concentrations. Each of the
eight aspects is represented graphically along a continuum of seven
degrees. Fig. 1 r e p r e s e n t s these eight aspects grapkically.

Figure 1. Eight aspects of texture


represented graphically.

The number of instruments. It is assumed that a g r e a t e r number


of instruments results in g r e a t e r textural strength than fewer instru-
ments, and that fewer instruments result in l e s s e r textural strength.
The degrees representing the textural strength a r e a s follows: No. 1,
two instruments;' No. 2, three to five instruments; No. 3, s i x to eight
instruments; No. 4, nine to eleven instruments; No. 5, twelve to fifteen
instruments; No. 6, sixteen to nineteen instruments; and No. 7, twenty
o r m o r e instruments.
Range of instruments. It is assumed that a sonority using a
l a r g e r range will have a different effect than one using a s m a l l e r range.
1. A section playing the same m s i c (such as the f i r s t violin
section) is counted as one instrument.
TEXTURAL PATTERNS AND STRENGTHS
If the sonority in each instance has no gaps l a r g e r than the other, the
textural strength of the l a r g e r range will be g r e a t e r than the one of
s m a l l e r range. It is upon this b a s i s that the following seven-degree
continuum is constructed: No. 1, one octave o r l e s s ; No. 2, one to two
octaves; No. 3, two to three octaves; No. 4, three to four octaves; NO.
5, four to five octaves; No. 6, five to s i x octaves; and No. 7, s i x o r
m o r e octaves.
Register of range. It is assumed that the lower the r e g i s t e r of a
given chord the g r e a t e r the textural strength; conversely, the higher
the r e g i s t e r , the l e s s the textural strength. The degrees of r e g i s t e r
a r e a s follows: No. 1, the 2- to the 4-line octave, inclusive; No. 2,
the small to the 2-line octave; No. 3, the contra- to the s m a l l octave;
No. 4, the 1 - to the 4-line octave; No. 5, the contra- to the 1-line
octave; No. 6, the great to the 3-line octave; and No. 7, the contra- to
the 4-line octave.
Spacing of instruments. It is assumed that the g r e a t e r amount of
space within a given - sonority the l e s s the textural strength, and con-
versely, the l e s s the space, the g r e a t e r the textural strength. The
continuum of seven degrees based on spacing is a s follows: No. 1,
octaves o r fifths (fourths) o r both; No. 2, intervals of the third ( o r
sixth) with four o r m o r e gaps;2 No. 3, intervals of the third ( o r sixth)
with two o r three gaps; No. 4, intervals of the third (or sixth) with one
o r no gap; No. 5, intervals of a second ( o r seventh) with four o r m o r e
gaps; No. 6, intervals of a second ( o r seventh) with two o r three gaps;
and No. 7, includes intervals of a second ( o r seventh) with one o r no
gap. In a l l instances the designated intervals may a l s o include l a r g e r ,
but never smaller, intervals?
Proportion of gap. Associated with spacing of instruments is the
proportion of the total gap to the total range. It is assumed that the
g r e a t e r the percentage of gap the l e s s the textural strength, and the
l e s s the percentage of gap the g r e a t e r the textural strength. The de-
g r e e s of gap-proportion a r e a s follows: No. 1, 91 to 100 percent gap;
No. 2 , 76 to 90 percent gap; No. 3, 61 to 75 percent gap; No. 4, 46 to
60 percent gap; No. 5 , 31 to 45 percent gap; No. 6, 16 to 30 percent
gap; and No. 7, 15 percent gap o r less.
Register of gap. Associated with the r e g i s t e r of instruments
and the proportion of gap is the r e g i s t e r of gaps. It is assumed that
sonorities which have gaps throughout a l l their r e g i s t e r s have l e s s tex-
tural strength than those which do not, and conversely.
The low r e g i s t e r includes s m a l l F and a l l tones below; the middle
r e g i s t e r includes a l l tones from s m a l l G to 2-line I?; and the high r e g -
i s t e r includes 2-line G and a l l notes above.
The degrees of the r e g i s t e r of gap a r e a s follows: No. 1, high,
middle, and low registers; No. 2, middle and low r e g i s t e r s ; No. 3,
high and low r e g i s t e r s ; No. 4, high and middle registers; No. 5 , low
register; No. 6, middle register,; and No. 7, high register.

2. A gap is defined a s a space l a r g e r t h a n a n i n t e r v a l of a f o u r t h


i n any chordal s t r u c t u r e o r group of s t r u c t u r e s .
3. Degree No. 1 does not include t h i r d s , s i x t h s , seconds, o r
sevenths. Degrees No. 2, 3, and 4 do not include seconds or sevenths.
QUENTIN R. NORDGREN
Doubling concentrations. It is assumed that chordal s t r u c t u r e s
which have notes doubled, o r played by m o r e than one instrument, will
tend to i n c r e a s e the textural strength over those which do not.
The degrees of doubling concentrations a r e a s follows: No. 1,
single-line doubling; No. 2, octave- o r fifth-doubling; No. 3, third-dou-
bling ( i t s inversion o r octave-duplicate); No. 4, second-doubling ( i t s
inversion o r octave-duplicate); No. 5, mixture of most o r a l l of the fol-
lowing - single-, octave-, third-, second-, triad-, and chord-doubling;
No. 6, triad-doubling; and No. 7, chord-doubling.
Register of concentrations. With reference to the r e g i s t e r of
doubling concentrations i t is assumed that doubled tones will tend to in-
c r e a s e the textural strength m o r e in lower r e g i s t e r s than in higher
registers.
The degrees of the r e g i s t e r of doubling concentrations a r e a s
follows: No. 1, high register4; No. 2, middle register; No. 3, low
r e g i s t e r ; No. 4, high and middle r e g i s t e r s ; No. 5, high and low r e g i s -
t e r s ; No. 6, middle and low r e g i s t e r s ; and No. 7 , high, middle, and
low r e g i s t e r s .
It may be noted that one aspect complements another. Where a
complete picture is desired each aspect cannot be taken separately; a l l
a s p e c t s must be viewed together.

In the analysis and study of musical compositions the following


procedure was followed: (1) the grouping together of m e a s u r e s which
were structurally homogeneous, (2) the selection of characteristic
chordal s t r u c t u r e s representative of the groups being studied, (3) the
reduction of the s c o r e to notation representing actual pitch sounds, (4)
the t r a n s f e r r i n g of data found on the reduction to the chart illustrating
the eight a s p e c t s of texture? in t e r m s of standards s e t up, and (5) the
gathering of data.
The mechanics of this procedure can be clarified by a n example.
FromBeethoven's Symphony No. 5 , m e a s u r e s with s t r u c t u r a l similarity
a r e illustrated a s a group i n Ex. 1 (p. 23). Characteristic chord s t r u c -
t u r e s a r e reduced to two staves, the notes ofwhich r e p r e s e n t the actual
pitches (Ex. 2, p. 24). In light of the standards s e t up, the data is then
t r a n s f e r r e d to the c h a r t illustrating the eight a s p e c t s of texture. This
is shown in Fig. 2, p. 24.
It is n e c e s s a r y that the data making up the typical picture of
these s t r u c t u r e s be preserved. However, i t is not desirable that every
slight deviation be included.
In gathering the data for a movement o r work, the following c h a r t
was used in connection with the d e g r e e s of each aspect:

Figure 3. Five classifications


of frequency.

4. See d i s c u s s i o n on r e g i s t e r s , pp. 21-2.


5. See c h a r t on p. 20.
Example 2. Reduction to characteristic chords.

- -
u
- -
a a
- -
a a
-
T

Numbers indicate number of instruments playing each pitch.

= Frequent Usage
------ = Less Frequent Usage

M I 2 3 4 5

R I 1 2 3 4

R R 1 2 3 4 5 6

S I 1 2 3 4

5 6 7

DC 1 2

Figure 2. Transferred data.


TEXTURAL PATTERNS AND STRENGTHS
In Fig. 3, F stands for frequency, r stands forrare, if stands
for infrequent, mf stands for medium frequent, f stands for frequent,
and vf stands for very frequent. Thus, by using this frequency scale
with each of the eight aspects, the various patterns found in a move-
ment o r work can be summarized a s to the frequency with which each
pattern i s used.

The average textural strength of any given sonority o r group of


sonorities may be ascertained by dividing the sum of the appropriate
degree number of each aspect by the number of aspects. Using Fig. 2
a s an example, we find that, ignoring the l e s s frequent use of SI degre?
No. 6, the average textural strength of the group of sonorities i s 4.63P
In some instances the register of gap,will need special considera-
tion when computing average textural strength. As it stands, it i s a s -
sumed that all three registers a r e used. However, when only two
registers a r e used, it is necessary to subtract 1 from the degree
number, and, when one register i s used, it i s necessary to subtract 4
from the degree number.
The average textural strength may be found for a movement o r
work through the extension of the above principle. This i s useful in
comparing the works of one composer with those of another, with r e -
gard to textural strength.

In order to determine the overall textural strength of each aspect


in a movement o r work, the aspect strength i s found. The aspect
strength is determined by multiplying each degree with the number
representing the frequency-scale rating appropriate to it. The sum of
the products of all aspect degrees is then divided by the sum of the f r e -
quency-scale numbers used in the multiplication. F o r example, from
the hypothetical data found in Table 1, we find the sum of the products
to be 78. We find the sum of the frequency-scale numbers used in the
multiplication to be 18. Dividing 78 by 18 we obtain 4.33. Therefore
the sacing-of-instruments aspect strength for the second movement i s
4. 33. The greatest value of the aspect strength i s in comparing one
movement o r work with another, o r the works of one composer with
those of another.
TABLE 1. SPACING OF INSTRUMENTS RATED ON

THE FREQUENCY SCALE (SECOND MOVEMENT)

FREQUENCY SCALE RATINGS


MOVEMENT
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
r if mf f vf

Second
I
I Spacing-of-instruments Degrees

6. The detgees used add up t o a t o t a l of 37. This f i g u r e divided


by t h e t o t a l number of aspects, which i s 8, gives an average of 4.625 or
4.63.
QUENTIN R. NORDGREN
Apparent to the observant listener a r e characteristic differences
between the works of such m a s t e r s a s Beethoven and Mendelssohn, o r
Schumann and Brahms. Some of Brahms' music is said to be "muddy!'
If this i s so, what makes it sb'und that way? Why does Schumann's
music frequently sound "thick1'while Mendelssohnls music demonstrates
clarity of sound, o r why does Beethoven's music reveal power without
the "muddiness1' of B r a h m s ?
The complete answer to these questions could come only after an
exhaustive study of every conceivable phase of the music involved.
Nevertheless, a study of i t s texture is a most important phase.
By using the c r i t e r i a s e t up, eight symphonies were analyzed and
compared. These symphonies were a s follows: Symphonies No. 3 and
-
N u of Beethoven, Symphonies No. 3 and No. 4 of Mendelssohn, Sym-
phonies No. 1 and No.4 of Schumann, and Symphonies No. 1 and No. 4
of Brahms.
-
Table 2 (p. 27) illustrates the number of instruments used most
frequently by Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann, and Brahms.
The aspect relating to the number of instruments is found to have
the least constancy of a l l aspects. Nevertheless, some combinations
a r e more prominent than others. Found most prominent a r e Beetho-
ven's use of s i x to eight instruments, Mendelssohn's use of three to
five and nine to eleven instruments, Schumannls use of twelve to fifteen
instruments, and Brahms' use of s i x to eight and twelve to fifteen in-
struments. Beethoven's number-of-instruments pattern shows a gap
between extremes.
Table 3 (p. 27) shows the most frequent use of ranges. The most
prominent ranges used by each of the composers a r e a s follows: Bee-
thoven, Mendelssohn, and Schumann, three to four octaves; Brahms,
two to three and three to four octaves.
Illustrated inTable 4 (p. 27) a r e the most frequent patterns of the
r e g i s t e r of range. The most prominent r e g i s t e r used by a l l four com-
posers is from the great to the 3-line octave.
The most frequent spacing-of-instruments patterns a r e shown in
Table 5 (p. 28). The sonority having intervals of a third o r sixth with
two o r three gaps is found most frequent in a l l instances withBeethoven
and Mendelssohn and is found most prominent with Schumann and
Brahms.
The most frequent u s e of gap-proportions is illustrated inTable 6
(p. 28). The sonority with 61 to 75 percent gap is most prominent with
Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and Brahms. The sonority with 46 to 60 per-
cent gap is most prominent with Schumann.
In Table 7 (p. 28) the r e g i s t e r s of gap most frequently employed
a r e shown. Gaps in the middle-low r e g i s t e r a r e found to be most f r e -
quent in a l l instances with Mendelssohn and most prominent with Bee-
thoven, Schumann, and Brahrns.
The most frequent doubling concentrations a r e illustrated in
Table 8 (p. 29). Single-line and octave-or fifth-doubling concentrations
a r e most prominent with Beethoven. Mendelssohn u s e s octave-doubling
most. Schumann u s e s octave-doubling most with triad-doubling nearly
a s much. With Brahms the doubling of the third is most prominent.
Table 9 (p. 29) indicates the r e g i s t e r s of doubling concentrations
used most frequently. The use of the middle r e g i s t e r for doubling con-
TEXTURAL PATTERNS AND STRENGTHS

TABLE 2. THE NUMBER OF INSTRUMENTS MOST


FREQUENTLY USED

Composer
Number of Instruments - Degrees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Beethoven 2 4 2 1

Mendelssohn 4 2 3 1 2
1
Schumann 2 1 3 1 2
Brahms 1 3 2 3 1 2
*Times Found Most Frequent
*This has reference to the number of movements
in which certain patterns a r e found most frequent.
Some movements have more than one most frequent
pattern.

TABLE 3. RANGES OF INSTRUMENTS MOST

FREQUENTLY USED

endelssohn 1 8 1

TABLE 4. REGISTER OF RANGES MOST


FREQUENTLY USED

Composer
Register of Range - Degrees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Beethoven 1 8 1
Mendelssohn 7 2
Schumann 1 8 1
Brahms 1 7
Times Found Most Frequent
QUENTIN R. NORDGREN

TABLE 5. SPACING O F INSTRUMENTS MOST


FREQUENTLY USED

Composer ,
Spacing of Instruments - Degrees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Beethoven 8
Mendelssohn 8
Schumann 7 2
Brahms 7 2
Times Found Most Frequent

TABLE 6. PROPORTIONS O F GAP MOST


FREQUENTLY USED

2 6 4
Mendelssohn 1 6 3 1
1 4 6 2

TABLE 7. REGISTERS O F GAP MOST


FREQUENTLY USED

Composer
Register of Gap - Degrees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Beethoven 3 7 I

Mendelssohn 8
Schumann 1 8 1
Brahms 1 8

Times Found Most Frequent


TEXTURAL PATTERNS AND STRENGTHS

TABLE 8. DOUBLING CONCENTRATIONS MOST


FREQUENTLY USED

Composer
Doubling Concentrations - Degrees
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Beethoven 4 4 1
Mendelssohn 2 5 1 1 1
Schumam 4 2 3
Brahms 2 4 1 2
T i m e s Found Most Frequent i

TABLE 9. REGISTER O F CONCENTRATIONS MOST


FREQUENTLY USED

Mendelssohn
QUENTIN R. NORDGREN
centrations i s found to be most frequent in every instance with Men-
delssohn and Schumam and most prominent with Beethoven and Brahms.
The average textural strength of the most frequently used pat-
terns for each of the four composers i s a s follows: Beethoven, 3.31;
Mendelssohn, 3.33; Schumann, 3.65; and Brahms, 3.50.
The average aspect strengths for each composer a r e shown in
Table 10.

TABLE 10. AVERAGE ASPECT STRENGTHS

Composer I

Mendelssohn 3.95 3. 3 4 5. 10 4.03 3.75 2.58 3.41 3.41


Schumann 4.47 3.32 5.23 3.93 3.69 2.58 3.88 3.61
Brahms 4.26 3.54 4.96 3.97 3.74 2.59 3.56 3.92
Average Aspect Strength

There a r e times when each composer does not use doubling. To


what extent each composer u s e s doubling is indicated by the following
approximate percentages: Beethoven, 8 1 percent; Mendelssohn, 67 p e r -
cent; Schumann, 93 percent; and Brahms, 76 percent.

This study reveals that four of the aspects were used quite s i m i -
larly among the four composers. These aspects of texture a r e : r e g i s t e r
of range, spacing of instruments, r e g i s t e r of gap, and r e g i s t e r of
doublings. The other four aspects show greater differences.
Schumann and Brahms employ a l a r g e r number of instruments
with more frequency than do Beethoven and Mendelssohn. Somewhat
more surprising is the finding that Brahms u s e s a narrower sonority
range than the other three composers, i. e. with reference to the most
frequent patterns. Undoubtedly the impression of a wide sonority range
in the music of Brahms comes from the frequent shifting of register,
rather than an actual wide sonority range. Found in the music of
Schumann was the use of l e s s gap than in the music of the other three
composers. In other words, the chords most frequently used were
constructed more solidly than the chords of the other composers. The
types of doublings used most prominently a r e Beethoven's single-line
and octave-doublings, Mendelssohn's octave-doubling, Schumann's oc-
tave- and triad-doublings, and Brahms' third-doubling. As to the amount
of doubling employed, the composers arrange themselves in the follow-
ing o r d e r (from those using the principle of doubling most to those us-
ing it least): (1) Schumann, (2) Beethoven, (3) Brahms, and (4) Mendels-
soh.
Findings which a r e believed to be most responsible for differ-
ences heard in B r a h m s ' music a r e the following: a s compared with the
other composers studied, m o r e frequent use df large numbers of in-
struments (along with Schumann), prominent doubling of the interval of
the third, and, to a l e s s e r extent, more frequent doubling in the middle-
low register.
TEXTURAL PATTERNS AM) STRENGTHS
Characteristic differences in Beethoven's music a r e due to the
following factors: the contrasting use of both few and many instruments
(with the few being most frequent), m o r e frequent use of gaps in the
high-middle-low r e g i s t e r , prominent doublings of the single-line and
octave, l a r g e percentage of doubling, and, to a l e s s e r extent, doubling
in the middle-low register. It is believed that the greatest contributing
factor to Beethoven's "lack of muddiness" is the type of doubling used.
The sound of Schumann's music i s characteristically different
because of the following factors: v e r y frequent use of l a r g e numbers of
instruments, s m a l l e r proportion of gap ( m o r e solid construction),
prominent doubling of triads, and the l a r g e percentage of doubling.
In the works analyzed Mendelssohn was found to be c h a r a c t e r i s -
tically different because of the following factors: prominent use of a
s m a l l number of instruments, prominent use of octave-doubling, and
a relatively s m a l l percentage of doubling.

Bibliography

Culver, Charles. Musical Acoustics. Philadelphia: Blakiston, 1941.


Henderson, William. The Orchestra and O r c h e s t r a l Music. New
York: Scribners, 1927.
Hindemith, Paul. Elementary Training for Musicians. New York:
Associated Music Publishers, 1949.
Jacob, Gordon. Orchestral Technique. London: Oxford UP, 1949.
Piston. Walter. Harmonv. New York: W. W. Norton. 1948.
~imsky-~orsakov,~. Principles of orchestration. T r a n s .
by Edward Agate. Scarsdale: Kalmus Orchestral Scores, 1912.
~ c h o e n b e r ~ i,no old. Theory of Harmony. Trans. by Robert
Adams. New York: Philosophical Library, 1948.
Shirlaw, Matthew. The Theory of Harmony. London: Novello, 1917.
Dyson, George. "The Texture of Modern Music:' Music and L e t t e r s ,
4(1923):Nos. 2, 3,4.
Irvine, D. B. "Toward a Theory of Intervals:' Journal of the Acous-
tical Society of America, 17(1946):350-55.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi